Court File and Parties
COURT FILE NO.: CV-13-473884 DATE: 20210527 SUPERIOR COURT OF JUSTICE - ONTARIO
RE: Arsenio Parlanis, Plaintiff AND: Todd Reybroek, Robert Romero and Reybroek Barristers Professional Corporation, Defendants
BEFORE: D.A. Wilson J.
COUNSEL: Bryan Rumble, for the Plaintiff Jillian Van Allen, for the Defendants
HEARD: May 26, 2021
Endorsement
[1] This is a solicitor’s negligence action that was commenced in 2013. The action was set down for trial and on February 5, 2020 counsel appeared and set a trial date for September 20, 2021 for 12 days. The pretrial date of May 28, 2021 was also fixed at that time. Counsel agreed to a schedule for the delivery of expert reports which required the Plaintiff to serve his reports by November 30, 2020, the Defendants to serve their expert reports by February 28, 2021 and reply reports thereafter.
[2] I was asked to hear a consent request for an adjournment of the pretrial date and the trial date. The reason for the request was that on May 12, 2021 Master Graham had made an order amending the Statement of Defence to permit the Defendants to specifically plead the amount of accident benefits received by the Plaintiff. In addition, the Defendants were granted leave to plead that the Defendant law firm had a judgment for fees and disbursements owed which would be claimed as a set-off against any Judgment the Plaintiff obtains in this action.
[3] In response to my inquiry, counsel for the Plaintiff advised that no expert report on the standard of care of a solicitor has been served, despite the passage of 8 years since the claim was commenced and the consent timetable that was filed at the time the trial date was fixed. No explanation was offered for the failure to obtain and file an expert report, which is necessary in an action for professional negligence. It should have been served 6 months ago pursuant to the timetable order. The Defendants have served an expert report.
[4] I see no reason why the trial date should be adjourned. In Toronto, fixed trial dates are only adjourned in exceptional circumstances. If counsel choose to flaunt the Rules of Civil Procedure and breach timetabling orders they agreed to, that does not form the basis for an adjournment request, even with the consent of opposing counsel.
[5] Similarly, the amendments granted by Master Graham are housekeeping in nature and any further discovery that is required can be completed quickly and well in advance of the pretrial and trial dates. The pretrial set for May 28th will be adjourned to a date in July to enable any discovery and documentary production to take place. The trial date of September 20, 2021 remains fixed.
Date: May 27, 2021